list_nodes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only listing operation but does not disclose pagination, response format, authorization needs, or any side effects. The minimal description leaves behavioral expectations vague.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and filtering dimensions. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a 4-parameter tool, the description is too sparse. It omits return format, pagination behavior, and any caveats about the 'side' or 'category' values. An agent would lack essential context to correctly invoke and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50% (only prefix and category have descriptions). The description mentions category, side, and prefix as filtering criteria, adding context for those parameters, but does not address the limit parameter. It partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions but not fully.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists node names and specifies the filtering dimensions (category, side, prefix), giving a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling lookup_node, but the act of listing vs looking up a single node is implied, so it is clear but lacks explicit differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lookup_node. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.